A) Importance of the landscape/seascape/indigenous territory for biodiversity, with additional consideration to climate benefits.
1. Is the proposed territory/landscape/seascape a globally important area for biodiversity?
Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The forest area protected by CIP is relatively small (3755 ha), but sounds like one of the last remainders of primary forest in the area. The significance of the El Chilar forests sounds like it is more important because of the well established model of traditional management and the possibility to create connectivity with other forest patches in the area.
Evidence B:La Comunidad Indígena Poqomam de Palín (CIP), desde la fundación del pueblo de indios del municipio de Palín (1570 aprox), se ha identificado con el manejo comunitario del bosque Nah’ Yuuq o El Chilar. Este bosque está ubicado en una costa paralela a la Costa del Pacífico tiene bosques húmedos y secos.
2. Is the area important for climate mitigation?
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: CIP has undertaken carbon measurements of their forest along with university partners and have identified very high carbon values- 415 tons/ha/yr, which is much higher than the average surrounding forest carbon values.
Evidence B:Los estudios de la Universidad de Guatemala definen al bosque el Chilar como un importante reservorio de biodiversidad y de carbono. Hay una fijación anual del carbono en el bosque de 415 toneladas por hectárea.
B) Geographical focus in an area under IPLC governance.
3. Is the area held and managed by IPLC under community-based governance systems?
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: The El Chilar forest has been managed and protected by the Poqomam Maya for hundreds of years (since at least 1570) through a very strong indigenous traditional governance system. The area is legally recognized as collective property since 2013.
Evidence B:La CIP fue la primera comunidad indígena en Guatemala que registró a su nombre 3.755 hectáreas del bosque como propiedad privada comunitaria indígena. La junta directiva convoca a diferentes asambleas. Cada comunitario cultiva una parcela de subsistencia dentro del bosque
4. Does the proposal explain the unique cultural significance of the area to IPLCs?
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The unique significance of the site is well explained- as the Poqomam Maya are deeply attached to their territory which holds a number of Maya sacred sites in addition to the forest and biodiversity resources.
Evidence B:El bosque es un medio de vida y de producción familiar y comercial. Tiene todas las estructuras de una comunidad indígena tradicional. Posee 6 sitios sagrados y 13 altares mayores, elementos culturales esenciales para la práctica de la espiritualidad de los Pueblos . El título de propiedad del bosque fue entregado a los niños y ancianos de la CIP
C) Vulnerability of the proposed IPLCs as well as their lands/waters/natural resources to threats.
5. Is the area vulnerable to threats/current risk of negative impacts to IPLC and biodiversity without action?
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The deforestation and degradation threats are mostly kept at bay by regular patrolling and exclusion of outsiders from the forest, if those efforts slackened however, the forest would be at high risk from peri-urban expansion, agriculture, ranching and illegal logging. The main ongoing threat cited by the EOI is the isolation of the forest from connectivity with other intact forest patches in the area, creating an island effect that is negatively impacting the sustainability of the plant and animal species in the forest.
Evidence B:La region a pesar de estar rodeada por barreras geográficas sufre las amenazas de actividades creadas fuera de esta y que no son compatibles con la conservación de la biodiversidad. Entre las amenazas están: la ganaderia extensiva, cultivo extensivo de cana, urbanizaciones, autopistas y grandes extensiones industriales. El cambio climático también es una amenaza para el bosque y los medios de vida de la comunidad. la migración también es una amenaza
D) Opportunities for ICI results - including enabling policy conditions, positive government support and presence of successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives that could be scaled up.
6. Are enabling policy conditions in place for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed area?
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: Guatemalan public forest policy is a mixed bag– there are important advances in the legal framework over the past few decades, including an important forest incentive program and the recognition of indigenous rights and the importance of traditional knowledge. Implementation of these policies on the ground however is weak and undermined by lack of government capacity, political will, corruption and weak intersectoral coordination. Despite decades of effort, the legal recognition of indigenous lands is still very slow and incomplete. Violence against indigenous land defenders is common.
Evidence B:la comunidad tiene diversos comités de zona en todo el bosque. Cada presidente tiene las llaves de los candados que abren las rejas que tapan el camino en cada sector del bisque. Cada año se elabora un Plan de Manejo de Bosques que es aprobado por la Asamblea. En 2015 el Gobierno de Guatemala le otorgó la Medalla Presidencial del Medio Ambiente.
7. Is there active government support for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed country/area?
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: The Government of Guatemala has supported some IPLC led conservation efforts, including the important experience with the community forest concessions in the Peten, but has disrupted and undermined others such as Semuc Champey. The Government has recognized the success of IPLC conservation efforts in El Chilar and awarded them a Presidential Conservation Award in 2015.
Evidence B:El Instituto Nacional de Bosques apoya con un técnico forestal municipal que apoya en los procesos de inscripción al Programa Nacional de Incentivos Forestales Existe un marco legal que permitió a la Comunidad Indígena Poqomam de Palín inscribir el bosque Nah’ Yuuq como propiedad privada colectiva, siendo un caso inédito en el país. Guatemala es parte del Convenio 169 y la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos Humanos de los Pueblos Indígenas, UNDRIP
8. Are there successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives in the proposed area that provide a foundation for scaling up?
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: Guatemala has many relevant and well established conservation initiatives, including the community concessions in the Peten and other historic indigenous traditional conservation areas such as the forest of Totonicapan and the forests of Huehuetenango.
Evidence B:La gestión exitosa de la CIP ha sido reconocida por el Estado de Guatemala a través del Ministerio de Ambiente y Recursos Naturales al haberles otorgado la Medalla Presidencial del Medio Ambiente en 2015. La CIP cuida del bosque desde 1873.
E) Synergies with existing investments.
9. Are there other initiatives (relevant projects) that provide complementary support for IPLC-led conservation in the geography?
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: While there are some larger scale investment projects in Guatemala, few appear to be in this area close to Guatemala City and the CIP does not report major co-financing for their proposed efforts.
Evidence B:Hay tres organizaciones existentes con las cuales podría contar para el desarrollo de actividades relacionadas con la propuesta. Ademas podrian colaborar con recursos económicos.
Section 2 - Quality and ability of the proposed approach and interventions to achieve transformational impact that generate the global environmental benefits (Total Points: 40)
A) Quality of proposed approach and ability to support traditional structures, knowledge and community practices in the delivery of global environmental benefits.
1. Is the proposed approach well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to: Enhance Indigenous Peoples' and Local Communities' (IPLCs) efforts to steward land, waters and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits?
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The proposed actions by the CIP to protect the El Chilar forest are very well aligned with the overall objectives of the ICI. This is an area with a long standing indigenous traditional conservation model, strong local governance and deep community buy in for conservation of their forest resources. The community is strongly rooted to their territory and the forest has high cultural significance.
Evidence B:Proponen actividades que cuentan con la aprobación de la Junta Directiva y cuenta con estudios técnicos. Mencionan el establecimiento de corredores biológicos, venta de carbono (deforestacion evitada), pago de servicios ambientales y fortalecimiento de la conservación, manejo y aprovechamiento de los productos del bosque. También proponen 3 subcomponentes complementarios. El objetivo a largo plazo de la CIP es el buen manejo del bosque. Las actividades propuestas están relacionadas con los principales temas del proyecto de ICI . La CIP necesita apoyo para conservar su cultura y el bosque que es su medio de vida
2. Does the EoI present a clear and convincing set of activities and results?
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The objectives of the proposal are clear. Strengthening the traditional governance and conservation activities are feasible and achievable, and established some long term revenue generating activities- such as payments for environmental services such as water and carbon would appear to be a good way forward. I am less clear about the feasibility of establishing biological corridors to other remaining forest patches, and the student scholarship program would appear to be an expensive and long term approach that might be hard to measure impact in the short term.
Evidence B:La propuesta presenta cuatro actividades principales y resultados claros de inversión en el terreno. De igual manera describe tres subcomponentes con sus actividades correspondientes para el fortalecimiento organizacional
3. Will the project (objectives and activities) contribute to overcoming identified threats and putting in place necessary enabling opportunities for IPLC-led conservation?
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The CIP proposed activities are well aligned to the threats and are mostly achievable, especially those around consolidating and providing long term sources of revenue for the traditional governance and protection model. I am not familiar enough with the area to judge the feasibility of the biological corridors proposal, which however seems quite ambitious given the expansion of urban areas and commercial agriculture in the immediate surroundings.
Evidence B:Los objetivos, actividades y resultados son claros y realizables tanto para apoyar la pervivencia de la CIP y la conservación del bosque, sus ecosistemas y sitios sagrados ancestrales de gran importancia cultural
4. Are the activities achievable within a $500,000 to $2,000,000 USD budget range in a period of 5 years of project execution?
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: The budget appears to be sufficient to support the proposed core conservation activities and expand work on carbon and water payment for environmental services. There is not enough detail on how the proposed biological corridors would be accomplished to assess the adequacy of the budget for those activities. The administrative costs for the scholarship program exceed the amount of resources to be re-granted, so possibly some cost reductions should be sought there.
Evidence B:Las actividades y resultados están en línea con el rango de inversión de la Eol. La CIP realizará las actividades dentro de los cinco años de duración del proyecto con el presupuesto asignado
5. Does the EoI include significant and concrete sources of co-financing?
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: The proposal does not include concrete co-financing, and CIP appears to have a low budget as an organization. They have recieved support before from both the public and private sectors as well as foundations, and have some important links with national organizations (Utz Che), universities and the private sector.
Evidence B:Menciona como organizaciones asociadas y con posibilidades de co-financiamiento: Asociación de Forestería Comunitaria de Guatemala Utz Che’, Universidad Rafael Landivar , Municipalidad de Palin, Instituto Nacional de Bosques INAB FAUSAC . Ademas se refiere a la sede de la CIP y pago de salarios.
B) Potential of the proposed activities to achieve IPLC-led transformational impact that generate global environmental benefits.
6. Are the estimated Global Environmental Benefits (GEF core indicators) substantial and realistic?
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: The area of the El Chilar forest is 3755 ha.
Evidence B:Propone una superficie de 3.755 hectáreas con prácticas mejoradas
7. Are the additional cultural and livelihoods results contributing to project objectives?
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: There are a number of cultural activities (community governance, protection of sacred sites) which are intrinsic to the project, and a number of others- support for women’s empowerment, long term capacity building (student scholarships) which add significant potential results to the project. The proposed financial sustainability activities, including payments for environmental services of water and carbon, also add important potential livelihoods results.
Evidence B:Indicadores sobre la proteccion y conservacion de los altares mayas y de los sitios sagrados . Se aumenta la cobertura forestal con especies nativas
8. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust vision for long-term sustainability?
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The project is definitely rooted in a long term vision for protection of the El Chilar forest, and if successful, would provide for the sustainability of the conservation results achieved thus far.
Evidence B:La consulta, capacitación y la definición de las prioridades y actividades del proyecto serán definidas desde el inicio del mismo. El objetivo es proveer herramientas para la autogestión y sostenimiento del proyecto
C) IPLC-led conservation that advances national and global environmental priorities.
9. Does the EoI build on and contribute to national priorities as defined in NBSAPs and/or NDCs?
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: While it is a relatively small area, the project represents an important model of indigenous community led conservation, based on centuries old traditional practices and a forest governance model that is a national priority within Guatemala’s NBSAP. The EOI summarizes those linkages well and explains how the project would contribute to the achievement of Guatemala’s NDC.
Evidence B:La propuesta es coherente con la Política Nacional de Diversidad Biológica y con la Estrategia Nacional de Diversidad Biológica y Plan de Acción 2012-2022. En el 2015 Guatemal propuso para el 2030 la reducción de sus emisiones a un 11.2%
D) Demonstrated gender mainstreaming in all activities.
10. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust approach to gender mainstreaming?
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: The project notes some cultural challenges to incorporation of women in community forest management and protection activities, but proposes a thoughtful approach to supporting women’s own reflection, organizing and assumption of more participation and leadership on their own terms and through their own process.
Evidence B:Explica que las mujeres no pueden participar en las actividades del bosque. Sin embargo consultarán con sus 125 socias sobre la manera y tiempos de involucramiento en el proyecto. Se trabajará en el empoderamiento de las mujeres
E) Innovation and potential to scale up.
11. Do the proposed activities and results demonstrate innovation and potential for transformative results at scale?
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: The project proposes consolidation and enhanced sustainability for a very successful model of indigenous traditional governance, lessons from which are relevant across the region and globe. The scale of this project however is relatively small, and the geographic scope of the proposed biological corridors is not clear.
Evidence B:La CIP ha cuidado de su territorio desde 1873, ha protegido y conservado el bosque y sus prácticas culturales . Cuenta con aliados para el desarrollo de las actividades propuestas. En el pasado ha desarrollado proyectos con presupuestos pequeños, medianos y grandes
Section 3 - Qualifications and experience of the Organization (Total Points: 30)
A) Indigenous Peoples or Local Community organization legally recognized under national laws.
1. Is the EoI led by an IPLC organization?
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: The proposed project has been designed and led by an indigenous community based organization. There is a significant component for organizational strengthening.
Evidence B:La CIP está asentada en territorio ancestral indígena, cuenta con un sistema de gobernanza ancestral, vela por el bienestar colectivo de su gente, cuida y protege su territorio de manera holística. Tiene vasta experiencia en el manejo y conservación del bosque y conoce los derechos colectivos de los Pueblos Indígenas
B) Demonstrated on the ground leadership related to Indigenous Peoples and/or Local Community Conservation.
2. Does the lead proponent demonstrate on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work?
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: The fact that El Chilar forest still exists is a testament to the dedicated efforts and leadership of the Poqomam Maya to protect their territory. These types of examples, in which ancestral practices remain vibrant and have been completed with modern scientific management activities, represent and important model for the region and world.
Evidence B:La CIP ha participado en las mediciones de agua, carbono y monitoreo de la biodiversidad. Contará con un equipo técnico con experiencia en proyectos GEF , derechos humanos y logro de financiamiento internacional . La CIP tiene uno o mas proyectos dirigidos por los Pueblos Indígenas. Ha realizado diversos proyectos con financiamiento del exterior
C) Proven relevant experience in working with IPLC networks, alliances and organizations/ strength of partnerships on the ground.
3. Does EoI demonstrate that the lead proponent has strong partnerships, particularly with other IPLC organizations, to carry out the work?
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: The CIP was one of the founding members of Utz Che, one of the most important networks of community forest associations in Guatemala, and has existing relationships with universities, the local municipality and state agencies for technical support.
Evidence B:Menciona a la Asociación de Forestería Comunitaria Utz Che’ y la Municipalidad de Talin. Apoyaran en la ampliación y divulgación de la experiencia
D) Technical expertise and capacity to address environmental problems, root causes and barriers.
4. Does EoI demonstrate technical capacity of lead proponent and partners to deliver the proposed results?
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: While the CIP has not executed GEF projects previously, nor a project of this size, they have managed small and medium sized projects and have retained technical experts with extensive conservation and management experience of GEF projects.
Evidence B:Contara con un equipo tecnico, una de las personas participó en proyectos GEF que no fueron ejecutados por la CIP. La participación de la CIP en otros proyectos de conservación y biodiversidad le ha proporcionado la experiencia necesaria para ejecución de esta propuesta
E) Project Management capacity.
5. Does the EoI demonstrate project & financial management capacity needed for scale of proposed effort?
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: The project meets all three criteria- they have managed at least one project over $200k, have at least three funding sources and produce internal audits yearly and external audits on demand. They are however a small organization with reference to the size of their annual budget and the number of projects they have managed.
Evidence B:La CIP utiliza un presupuesto anual entre 10.000 a 100.00 dólares al año. La financiación de la organización proviene al menos de tres fuentes, sin que ninguna de ellas proporcione mas del 60% . La CIP produce anualmente informes y estados financieros. Se realizan auditorías externas atendiendo al pedido de los donantes
6. Does lead organization have experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF?
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: CIP has retained highly qualified management staff with experience of GEF safeguards.
Evidence B:La Doctora Doris Martínez, quien será una de los coordinadores del proyectos sí ha gestionado y ejecutado proyectos GEF con anterioridad (2013), para el Consejo Nacional de Áreas Protegidas, como Coordinadora de Proyecto. Realizó todas las tareas administrativas y técnicas requeridas a un coordinador. El Licenciado Carlos Chex, ha sido Oficial de Programas en agencias de cooperación internacional y de países donantes en Guatemala y Centroamérica, conoce además el funcionamiento de los mecanismos bilaterales y multilaterales de cooperación en el país.